The US Constitutional rule states they make make a uniform rule of naturalization for the States to follow.
The State Constitutions enumerate no such rule. They made a legislative act that would have sunsetted just as ALL mere legislative acts do.
Again, you attempt confuse two desperate concepts to justify an unauthorized authority.
BTW - please show me any words contained in the Constitution that grants the federal authority the ability to determine:
1)who is or is not a citizen
2)what does or does not constitute 'natural born'.
AND
the authority to impliment such acts within the States as may fall under the naturalization rule.
-----
That Constitution is the fundamental law of the land.
For the federal government, not the People.
Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law
-----
But don't misrepresent what the Founding Fathers and the Framers meant.
I agree completely. That's why I'm attempting to prevent you from it.
-----
As for "putting words in your mouth:" I haven't. I am simply suggesting to you what your best REAL argument would be.
As you have yet to provide any evidence to support your contentions against a single one of my arguments, I would submit that I am not the one in need of advice.
And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, “that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state.
View of the Constitution of the United States George Tucker
Showing that St. George Tucker quoted Vattel on something completely unrelated to natural born citizenship is a ridiculous attempt to make an argument where absolutely no argument exists.
I and other reasonable interpreters of past history and law have noted, probably on MANY occasions, that Vattel WAS QUOTED by past legal authorities. Ben Franklin wrote that he appreciated 3 copies of Vattel's book, because "the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations."
Do you know what the heck the "law of nations" even MEANS? Today we would call it "INTERNATIONAL LAW."
John Marshall quotes Vattel's thoughts on when a person who is a citizen of ONE country has his domicile in a foreign land, and is effectively participating as if he were a member of the foreign society.
And St. George Tucker quotes Vattel to say that independent nations may band together and form a confederacy.
Big whoop. These are all matters of INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is INTERNATIONAL LAW that Vattel was regarded as having some authority in.
But NONE of the Founders or Framers EVER quoted Vattel in regard to our internal affairs, and CERTAINLY not as an authority on what constituted US citizenship.
More relevantly, St. George Tucker said:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker even explicitly defines for us here who NATURAL BORN CITIZENS are. He says they are those BORN WITHIN THE STATE.
He then defines who aliens are: THOSE BORN OUT OF IT.
And everything you write is like this. You stretch the faintest of possible associations and claim it's "evidence."
And you completely ignore or brush aside the CLEAR WORD of what a natural born citizen was and was not.
That is called TWISTING HISTORY, TWISTING LAW, and (since it is all in regard to the Constitution) TWISTING THE CONSTITUTION.
And YOU are guilty of it.